House Bill Proposes to Slash TIGER Funding

Federal lawmakers are running out of time to come up with a long-term transportation funding solution by May 31, when the current bill expires. Meanwhile, the House Appropriations Committee has released a budget for FY 2016, which begins in October, that proposes to drastically reduce funds for projects that promote walking and biking.

The Indianapolis Cultural Trail is one of hundreds funded by TIGER. Image: Visit Indy

The budget proposal calls for keeping transit and highway funding about the same as this year. It also calls for big cuts to the enormously popular TIGER program, which has helped fund projects like Tampa’s Riverwalk and the Indianapolis Cultural Trail.

The proposal would cut TIGER funding from $500 million to $100 million. The bill calls for reducing the size of individual grants from a minimum of $10 million to $2 million, and from a maximum of $200 million to $15 million. The bill would also increase the required local match from 40 to 50 percent.

Fortunately, this proposal will have to be hammered out with the Senate, which is likely to be more friendly to TIGER, says Transportation for America’s David Goldberg.

“We know that there’s pretty solid support for TIGER in the Senate,” Goldberg said. “We expect their number to be higher … but we’ll see if we can get it up to what it was this year.”

On the bright side, Goldberg said, this year’s appropriations bill doesn’t call for limiting TIGER funding to road, bridge, and port projects, like early proposals did last year.

The appropriations bill also proposes cuts to the New Starts program, which provides federal funds for major new transit projects. Under the House proposal, New Starts would receive $200 million less in total funding, for a total of $1.92 billion. All projects that already have a full funding agreement with the federal government would receive their money. The bill would leave an additional $250 million for other projects.

4 thoughts on House Bill Proposes to Slash TIGER Funding

And yet states still only have to pay for 10% of their ever-expanding highways off of a usless gasoline tax. If states had to pay for 50% of their new highways and introduce tolling or VMT (as what is what should be done), attitudes would changes REAL QUICK.

What exactly is the point of this? The difference needer to put a dent in annual transportation expenditures is a magnitude of tens of billions. Every cent going to transit and pedestrian projects could be taken away and it still wouldn’t make much of a difference. So why focus on cutting the peripherals, especially when alternatives to driving are far more cost-effective to begin with?

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

As the president’s transportation proposal fades from the news cycle and we eagerly await the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s six-year reauthorization bill, here comes the House Republicans’ proposed budget for transportation and housing for next year. Note: What the House GOP released yesterday wasn’t an authorization bill but an appropriations bill for 2015. […]

There’s good news out of the Senate committee responsible for doling out transportation funds. Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee okayed a small increase in TIGER funding, according to Stephen Lee Davis at Transportation for America. TIGER is the program that allows local governments to compete directly for transportation funds, circumventing state DOTs, and helps get a […]

Donald Trump's first budget will reportedly follow a blueprint for extreme spending cuts laid out by the Heritage Foundation. That could spell disaster for cities, since Heritage recommends eliminating federal support for transit.

Yesterday, U.S. DOT did something it hadn’t done for a decade: submit a surface transportation authorization bill to Congress. And what a bill it is. The $302 billion, four-year GROW AMERICA Act has several major reforms that would shift federal policy in a more multi-modal direction. One big change that we’ve noted before is that […]